Frisco's Flock Cameras - Opinions?

@Jjj :
I love the idea. Don't break the law and you won't have to worry about them. If one child's life is saved, well worth it.

The system has proven to be a great tool in crime fighting - identifying stolen vehicles mainly. The problems stem from abuse by users or agencies with access to the data.The several cases of inappropriate use of the data (not in Frisco) were mostly police officers who used it to eavesdrop on people in their personal life. There had also been cases where access was granted to federal agencies or searches done on behalf of them.There should be clear policy on how and who can have access to the data and regular audits.Here is a report on the FLOCK system of Frisco Police. Note the data is shared with many of the area police dept.transparency.flocksa fety.com/frisco-tx-p d

@Jjj: @FriscoRocks: @KiNg: after being in a grand jury and learning how these are use, I am 100% liking them. It can be used in both ways of proving someone guilty or innocent. But agree if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about

@Jjj: I personally don't feel much safer only unless something bad were to happen to me near one of the locations. Otherwise I feel it's only a profiling tool.

@Tamara :
From reading about the basic description of the system IIUC the Flock cameras in Frisco is set up for identifying vehicles. It is not used for surveillance of people.The system can be set up for both but Frisco's one is only for id'ing vehicles.

@KiNg: Understood but how much crime is solved with this method of surveillance. I am not opposed to it at all just didn't know what they were studying and how they plan to reduce crime with this type of tool.

@Tamara :
spectrumlocalnews.co m/tx/south-texas-el- paso/news/2026/03/06 /police-say-aut

@KiNg: thanks for that information KiNg

The Los Angeles Police Dept. had decided not to renew the contract with Flock Safety. Privacy concerns.Although I think they are re-thinking how not to get sued or re-thinking how they can avoid to be tangled with law suits regarding privacy.

What do you think about the American fourth amendment right to privacy?
Should it apply to the Texas use of flock cameras? U.S. Rep. Keith Self has unveiled legislation that would require federal law enforcement to obtain official warrants before accessing or querying data collected by state and local systems, including automated license plate readers.
The Protecting Rights in Video and Equipment Acquired Discovery (PRIVACY) Act seeks to close a loophole that allows government officials to access surveillance databases collected by companies like Flock without a search warrant. Critics of ALPRs often point out that not requiring a warrant to access data can lead to the misuse of official resources and violations of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights.
"Americans' Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their privacy does not disappear just because of new technology or artificial intelligence," said Self (R-McKinney). "Americans have a constitutional right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and our government is supposed to get a warrant before invading that privacy. This bill simply restores that protection. Get a warrant."
The PRIVACY Act also seeks to create a list of intrusive technologies and require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing them, limit possession of the data to 30 days unless the data constitutes evidence in a prosecution, and prohibit the use of federal funds to fund, purchase, or install any of the listed technologies.texasscorecard.com/f ederal/us-rep-self-p roposes-legislation- to-limit-automa